Page 1316 - Week 05 - Thursday, 26 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
matter. I must take up the comment made by my colleague the Deputy Chief Minister, who noted that this Labor Party that claims to represent the workers cannot even sit in this chamber when a matter of this nature is being debated. Its members find other more important things to do. Indeed, it is becoming the joke around the town that we have an invisible Opposition that is rarely, if ever, in the house. I think it is time its members started to take stock of themselves and, if they really believe they represent the workers, they should be here representing them. (Quorum formed)
I note that a quorum is present, Mr Speaker, without one additional member of the Labor Opposition appearing, however.
My colleague the Deputy Chief Minister has spoken on the amendment introduced by this Bill which will allow for a more equitable calculation of a worker's long service leave entitlement. A further aspect of the Bill concerns the levy on employers which is imposed by the board to cover the payments of long service leave and the board's administrative costs. At present, the Australian Government is required under section 24(1) of the Act to investigate every three years the state and sufficiency of moneys held to meet the potential liabilities of long service leave payments, and to report on whether any increase or reduction in the levy is necessary.
In his report of 29 December 1988, the Australian Government Actuary recommended a reduction in the levy from two and a half per cent to two and a quarter per cent. You will note that the Bill replaces the references to the Australian Government Actuary with an actuary appointed by the ACT Treasurer.
The board consulted with the ACT Trades and Labour Council and the various ACT building and construction industry employer bodies on the actuary's recommendation, and all of those organisations agreed that the board should continue to collect and invest the two and a half per cent levy but that an amount equal to the one-quarter per cent reduction should be allocated to industry training. The amount collected would vary between $250,000 and $300,000 each year and, subject to ministerial approval, would be available for training purposes identified by bodies such as the ACT Regional Building and Construction Industry Training Council, the Vocational Training Authority, employers and union groups.
This redirection of industry resources to training will enable some immediate gaps in the industry's training requirements to be filled. The Government recognises that in the longer term this approach may not be the most appropriate and it will review the arrangement in the light of developments in industry financed training as they emerge across all industry sectors. The Vocational Training Authority has recommended that, within the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .